Trump widens lead

Republican Donald Trump is pulling away from the pack in the race for the party’s U.S. presidential nomination, widening his lead over his closest rivals in the past week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.

Republican voters show no signs they are growing weary of the brash real estate mogul, who has dominated political headlines and the 17-strong Republican presidential field with his tough talk about immigration and insults directed at his political rivals. The candidates are vying to be nominated to represent their party in the November 2016 general election.

Nearly 32 percent of Republicans surveyed online said they backed Trump, up from 24 percent a week earlier, the opinion poll found. Trump had nearly double the support of his closest competitor, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who got 16 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third at 8 percent.

Even when Trump was pitted directly in the poll against just his top two competitors, 44 percent backed him. Bush won about 29 percent of respondents, and Carson 25 percent.

Trump has driven the debate on the campaign trail with a hard-line immigration plan that calls for the deportation of undocumented immigrants, amendment of the Constitution to end automatic citizenship for all people born in the United States, and construction of a wall along the border with Mexico.

Trump’s campaign momentum has paid off with bigger crowds on the campaign trail. On Friday night, he moved a planned rally in Mobile, Alabama, to a football stadium seating more than 40,000.

Separate results found Clinton leading among Democrats, though support for her dipped below 50 percent to 48.5 percent.

Source: Reuters

The end of the Republican Party

Former American presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, sees the end of the Republican Party:

On immigration, Pat Buchanan campaigned on securing the border in 1991-92, when there were only 3 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

But the Bush Republicans refused to seal the border.

Now there are 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants and the issue is tearing the party apart. Now everybody is for “secure borders.”

We did urge a “moratorium” on legal immigration, such as America had from 1924 to 1965, to assimilate and Americanize the millions who had come. The [Wall Street] Journal Republicans called that xenophobia.

Since then, tens of millions of immigrants, here legally and illegally, mostly from the Third World, have arrived. Economically, they consume more in tax dollars than they contribute.

Politically, most belong to ethnic groups that vote between 70 and 90 percent Democratic. Their children will bury the GOP.

Consider California, which voted for Nixon all five times he was on a national ticket and for Reagan in landslides all four times he ran.

Since 1988, California has not gone Republican in a single presidential election. No Republican holds statewide office. Both U.S. Senators are Democrats. Democrats have 39 of 53 U.S. House seats. Republican state legislators are outnumbered 2-to-1.

Americans of European descent, who provide the GOP with 90 percent of its presidential vote, are down to 63 percent of the nation and falling.

By 2042, they will be a minority. And there goes the GOP.

Clinton’s African adventure

On their nine-day trip to Africa, Bill and Chelsea Clinton are traveling with 20 wealthy donors and supporters, some of whom have also been fundraising for Hillary’s presidential bid and others who are expected to give big to her campaign.

The opportunity to accompany Bill Clinton on trips across the globe on behalf of his philanthropic foundation for years has been considered both a reward for past donations and an inducement for future giving, say sources familiar with the foundation’s finance operation. This time, they say, it was an especially coveted invite that was extended to wealthy Clinton supporters — including those who are also expected to give generously to Hillary’s campaign.

The foundation, which provided POLITICO with the list of donors on the trip, said the group represents both longtime supporters as well as those who are just getting involved and provides an opportunity to see the projects they are contributing to.

Among those along for the ride, which began yesterday: Democrat Jay Jacobs and his wife, Mindy, longtime Clinton fundraisers and foundation supporters; billionaire CEO Lynn Forester de Rothschild; Washington lobbyist Liz Robbins, who in the past has hosted events for the Clintons at her East Hampton home; wealthy Ugandan Rumi Verjee, who made his fortune franchising Domino’s Pizza in England; and John and Rebecca MacKay, who have donated between $5 and $10 million to the foundation.

The labor movement might not yet be ready for Hillary, but Hillary is ready to start wooing labor. In an email sent out Tuesday to labor organizers by political director Amanda Renteria and obtained by POLITICO, the Clinton campaign announced it has hired Nikki Budzinski, former national labor coordinator at the UFCW, as its labor outreach director.

The announcement came the same day that the country’s most powerful union leader, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, delivered a much-publicized speech with the message that organized labor isn’t ready to endorse Hillary just yet.

Renteria said that filling the labor outreach post “has been a top priority for us given the importance of labor issues to Hillary and everyday Americans across the country. I also know that Hillary and so many of us here already have long-standing relationships within the labor community, and we’re looking forward to maintaining and growing those relationships as a team.” Budzinski will join the campaign on May 15, the email said.

Typo? Hillary fought children and families all her career

Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president, leaning on a message of middle-class rescue and claims that America’s economy is ‘still stacked in favor of those at the top,’ according to a campaign video that went online Sunday afternoon.

The campaign’s official announcement to reporters, perhaps finished in haste, included an embarrassing mistake in the omission of a key word. Hillary, it said, has ‘fought children and families all her career.’

Her video makes a point of featuring same-sex couples and Hispanic citizens.

‘I’m getting ready to do something,’ Clinton says in the brief ad, following a series of clips of ordinary-looking Americans describing what they’re ‘getting ready’ for.

‘I’m running for president,’ she says.

‘Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.’

That message is a daring one, given Clinton’s wealth. When she left the U.S. State Department in 2013, her financial disclosure report showed that her combined net worth with her husband was between $5.2 and $25.5 million. Millions more rolled in when she published her memoirs.

She famously claimed last year that she and former president Bill Clinton were ‘dead broke’ whenthey left the White House in 2001 – when they moved into a palatial home in a tree-lined New York City suburb.

Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta pushed a similar ‘middle-class’ message, but stepped on her announcement with his own email to a group of donors.

Source: Daily Mail

Bibi warns US Congress on Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the US Congress Tuesday that an international deal on Iran’s nuclear programme could threaten the survival of his country.

Dozens of Democrats chose to boycott the speech after Speaker of the House John Boehner, the top Republican in the lower chamber, invited Netanyahu to speak without consulting the White House. It was Netanyahu’s third address to US lawmakers.

Obama will not meet with Netanyahu while the premier is in Washington, with the White House noting the visit’s proximity to Israeli elections later this month.

Netanyahu said Monday that the address was not meant as a sign of disrespect to Obama, but rather intended to “speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

Iran is negotiating a deal with Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany to curb Tehran’s uranium enrichment and other parts of its nuclear programme in return for ending economic sanctions on Tehran.

Iran and the six powers aim to work out the main points of the deal by the end of the month, but they still disagree over how much and for how long Iran has to scale back its nuclear activities, and how fast the economic sanctions can be lifted.

2014: The year of living racially

My man Richard Sherman said something that kicked off the 2014, year-round, banal, racial back-and-forth that parades as debate in the U.S.

Other than that the Seattle Seahawks are my team, on account that they’re from my neck of the woods; what I know about American football is dangerous. So naturally, I was rooting for, if not watching, the Hawks, when, following their victory over the San Francisco 49ers, Sherman said That Thing. And from their citadels of stupidity, U.S. mainstream media—conservatives, liberals and libertarians—went into full St. Vitus mode

ilana_nuut2“I’m the best corner in the game. When you try me with a sorry receiver like [Michael] Crabtree, that’s the result you gonna get. Don’t you ever talk about me!”

Sherman sounded good to me. Still does. The man was pumped, as men ought to be in a testosterone-infused game. The Seahawks’ cornerback was correct to point out that his “outburst,” following the “defensive play that sealed his team’s trip to the Super Bowl,” was an extension of “his game-time competitiveness.”

“Let’s not make thug the new N-word,” pleaded John McWhorter, a scholar of color, whose intellectual and moral authority in the culture stems primarily from the concentration of melanin in his skin cells, not from the force of his argument.

Come again?

As in January of last year, I still don’t get the reason for the fuss over what Sherman said. His boisterous bit of theatre set in motion some racial, national free-association, which no man or woman with a brain cell to rub between them can follow.

Speaking of mindlessness, in February, the president of black America launched his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative. Barack Obama claimed “this initiative” as his “lifelong goal,” “even after he leaves office.”

If to go by Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” “rising inequality and declining mobility,” as well as “widespread decay in moral fiber”—these are as serious and widespread among “white, lower-status, less well-educated Americans,” as they are among the black and Hispanic communities. It was against this backdrop that Obama signaled his intention to deploy his signature initiative to keep at least $200 million belonging to “leading foundations and businesses,” for “programs aimed at minority youth of color.”

“Winning” means “spinning.” In April, the media-run, Barack Hussein Obama witness-protection program got a boost: a secretly recorded, racially charged private conversation between one Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, and his mistress du jour, a dark-haired Jenna Jamison look-alike. Joy! Here was another cover for a “news” media that had refused to cover the many outrages and scandals of the Obama presidency.

CNN took a break from its non-stop, no-news vigil for missing Malaysian Airline Flight 370 to ride the Sterling racism ass. Hard. And from abroad, the president who promised to see to it that ebony and ivory would live together in perfect harmony told the world that the U.S. “continues to wrestle with the legacy of race, slavery and segregation,” a lie he would repeat throughout the year.

August saw the start of Trayvon Martin round two. The shooting death, in Ferguson, Missouri, of Michael Brown (black) by police officer Darren Wilson (white), sparked country wide unrest among the perpetually restive, when the officer was vindicated by the grand jury. It transpired that prior to being gunned down; Brown had robbed a convenience store and tackled the cop.

In their shared hatred for white America, Attorney General Eric Holder and Mr. Obama were like two pimps in a pod. Both rushed to racialize what was strictly a law-and-order incident. “I am the attorney general of the United States, but I am also a black man,” declared the AG to his black constituents.

Hitherto, the president of black Americans had been mum about cops, soldiers or white kids coming under black attack. But he just couldn’t put a sock in it when it came to his personal affinity for Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. True to type, Obama saddled a “deeply rooted” racism plaguing the U.S. for the mishaps between cops and the communities of color they police.

One among many pig-ignorant panels on CNN—this one comprising Marc Lamont Hill and two interchangeable females—magically coalesced around a consensus parroted widely in pixels and print across the country: There was absolutely nothing racial whatsoever about the latest attack upon whites by blacks, this time of a store keeper in Memphis, Tennessee. Only a week back, the same sort of empaneled fools were intoning in unison about the ostensible racism behind the Ferguson killing ad nauseum.

Well, of course.

Read Ilana Mercer’s book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa:

Memorable to a majority marginalized was Martha MacCallum’s plainspoken, Fox News column about Brendan Tevlin. The blond, blue-eyed anchor’s words reached deeper than the convoluted fare of most: “A 19-year-old, suburban boy. Strawberry blond, athletic, bright and smiley. … When I look at this picture of Brendan Tevlin, I think, he could have been my son.” Brendan Tevlin of New Jersey was murdered by Ali Muhammad Brown, an African-American. A precious boy’s death at the hands of the detritus of humanity did not rate a mention by Big Media and its protégé.

Alas, white commentators—liberals, conservatives, even libertarians—and their fans converge on matters racial. All are constitutionally primed to convulse hysterically over race.

Take Judge Andrew Napolitano. A left-leaning, highly principled libertarian, the judge wrote a hot mess of a column, asserting that in Ferguson we saw “the error and perversion of the grand jury,” not to mention a “toxic mixture of a black underclass and a white power structure and the corrupt advantages people on the make and people on the take can exploit from it.” That’s left-libertarianism for you: In-thrall to postmodern constructs like “power structure,” “white privilege,” the left-libertarian’s tinny, rigid adherence to bogus theory is often foisted on facts that don’t fit. Thus did John Stossel mar a perfectly reasonable column on Ferguson,” with a nod to the endemic racism meme.

As far as promoting the demonstrably false racism meme—what speech is racist, which feelings are bigoted; the kind of humor that is off-color; the fears of The Other that are forbidden—conservatives too are indistinguishable from liberals. Consider the witty email exchange between a Sony executive and a producer concerning Obama and his racial proclivities. Leaked as it was by hackers, these emails were ruled by Megyn Kelly of Fox News to be wrong, racist and racially insensitive: all the dumb things liberals say about risqué expression.

Lesson no. 1: When they rabbit on about race, America’s chattering classes—blacks, whites, Democrats, Republicans and libertarians alike—exhibit an unthinking habit of mind. These are individuals (for they are not individualists) who’ve been trained by their political and intellectual masters to respond in certain, politically pleasing ways.

Don’t listen to them! Americans are not racist.

Despite the mindless racial merry-go-round manufactured by American media and cognoscenti, I suspect even liberals may have internalized another important lesson of survival: Never elect a black liberal president again.

That’s lesson no. 2.

© 2014 by Ilana Mercer

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

Read Ilana in German on Junge Freiheit.

Michelle O: Feeding fried chicken to black stereotypes

Peddling black stereotypes and pandering to black voters go hand in hand when you’re a leftwinger.

Imagine a scenario where white public figures try that. There would be a frenzy on every news program in the world.

It’s the left’s double standard at work again.

First lady Michelle Obama did both on Monday in an interview with TVOne’s “NewsOne Now,” telling host Roland Martin that black people should vote Democrat no matter who is on the ticket.

TVOne targets black viewers, with a website that says it“represents a connection to the authentic, rich, and diverse experience of African American life, history, and culture.”

Essentially, the first lady told Martin that blacks should vote only on the basis of race and not ideas.

“That’s my message to voters. This isn’t about Barack, it’s not about the person on the ballot, it’s about you,” Obama said. “And for most of the people that we’re talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this. That shouldn’t even come into the equation.”

The scary part is that isn’t the worst of what she said. Her highness gave permission to “her people” to treat themselves after they follow her orders and mindlessly cast their vote.

Here is a transcript of her mindless black racism, the political staple of the left:

Martin: So can we, if we go out to the polls, can we say, we have ‘souls to the polls’ on Sunday, can we do ‘soul food after we vote’?
Obama: Absolutely, I give everyone full permission to eat some fried chicken after they vote only after—if you haven’t voted…(laughter.)
Martin: Just checking!
Obama: You make a good point because I am, I do talk about health. But I think that a good victory for Democrats on Tuesday, you know, should be rewarded with some fried chicken.

Lying to go to war

The Christian Science Monitor uncovered evidence of Republicans lying in 2002 to go to war.

When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq’s August 1990 invasion of Kuwait,– part of the administration’s case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

“It was a pretty serious fib,” says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.

Shortly before US strikes began in the Gulf War, for example, the St. Petersburg Times asked two experts to examine the satellite images of the Kuwait and Saudi Arabia border area taken in mid-September 1990, a month and a half after the Iraqi invasion. The experts, including a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who specialized in desert warfare, pointed out the US build-up – jet fighters standing wing-tip to wing-tip at Saudi bases – but were surprised to see almost no sign of the Iraqis.

“That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist,” Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong.

The official response: “Trust us.” To this day, the Pentagon’s photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.

Source: CSM

The week of whining womin

 

mercer_ilanaby Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

The logic is as simple as it is foolproof. An “air-tight free-market argument,” according to WND:

“If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. That entrepreneurs don’t ditch men en masse for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.”

The logic is not, however, female proof.

It’s been the week of the weaker sex: filled with baseless whining. The Week of the Womin culminated with Facebook billionaire Sheryl Sandberg grumbling to Fox News millionaire Megyn Kelly: “I think it’s good that the president took some steps on equal pay, but it’s not enough.”

About women’s work Sandberg holds humdrum feminist views. She learned the hard way, having dared, at first, to share the aggregate reality she had encountered in the workplace: Men were wont to be as driven as demons. Women needed to be driven. For that observation, the Pussy Riot Sisterhood threatened to sandbag Sandberg. Facebook’s chief operating officer quickly corrected course. Ms. Sandberg started mouthing the only acceptable meme: Saddle “society” and the “patriarchy” for any and all female failures and preferences.

As her politically pleasing, mainstream opinion currently has it, society and the patriarchy have conditioned women to be nurturing and to apologize for any male-like, go-getter ambitions they harbor. While men will attribute their success to their own core skills; women “attribute their success to luck and help from other people,” carps Sandberg. The girls are too nice. They don’t take credit for their greatness. They don’t raise their hand enough. They don’t “Lean In”—the trite title of Sandberg’s serialized book. Yes, there’s a follow up for advanced nudniks.

While she should seldom be taken seriously, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was perfectly serious when she too, in 2012, inveighed against the same debunked myth of “income disparity between men and women” that Democrat Sandberg is perpetuating.

Into the Cannibal's Pot

For their part, Republicans will seldom deploy economic logic to dispel distaff America’s claims of disadvantage. To counter Pelosi, Republicans called on a teletart who is front-and-center on GOP TV because in possession of what TV takes: Big hair, big boobs and Chiclets for teeth—a pretty package that more than compensates for a lack of cerebral agility or originality. (Yes, why is it that nobody dares to comment on the overwhelming, overweening dominance the fair sex has in the anchor’s chair? Does anyone imagine that this advantage is bestowed at Fox Business, because “Kennedy” is more brilliant than Judge Andrew Napolitano? The reader doesn’t need me to spell out the profit-generating advantages women hold in visual media.)

Although this column did not name her at the time, one Michelle Fields, I believe, “pioneered” the tit-for-tat, rudderless case the Republicans excel at making on wage parity. Incapable of argument, Fields thus condemned Pelosi—not for her bogus theory of payinequality, but for her hypocrisy. Pelosi, it was revealed, had been silent about Democratic senators who were paying women staffers less than male staffers.

The lesson is equally applicable to the revelation, this week, that women working in the “executive mansion” are also getting paid less, on average, than their male counterparts. As this column advised in 2012 (well before Chuckie Krauthammer cottoned on), the T & A Republican TV contingent ought to have responded as follows:

“We’re glad that Barack Obama has finally understood that the length of time a woman has been in the workplace, her age, experience, education; whether she has put her career on hold to marry and mother—all factor into the wage equation. Good for you, Mr. President, for showing in practice that you comprehend that women are more likely than men to have had an interrupted career trajectory and to opt for part-time and lower-paying professions—education instead of engineering, for example.”

Now, Mr. President, please put down your pay-parity executive order and step away from that pen, slowly.

© 2014 by Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

Pew: Next US generation more than 50% non-white

American rolemodels
American rolemodels

For the first time in American history, non-whites will make up half or more of the next generation, likely pushing Washington toward a bigger government — and the GOP better tone down their anti-government rhetoric if they want to win them, according to a top polling outfit.

At a briefing for congressional aides hosted by the moderate Republican Ripon Society, Pew Research Vice President Michael Dimock said that the trend among younger Americans is support for government programs and acceptance of Democratic Party policies.

“Their tendency is more liberal, their tendency is bigger government,” he said of so-called “millennials” born between 1979 and 1995. They will likely set the trend for the still-unnamed next generation.

“This is a generation that is 41 percent non-white; the generation behind it is likely to be close to 50 if not more than 50 percent non-white, and the anti-government kind of tone is one that really doesn’t resonate with that non-white sector in particular,” said Dimock at the Ripon retreat.

His advice to the GOP: “Try to take as much of the anti-government rhetoric out.”

Ripon provided Secrets with a video of his recent presentation. In it, he said that younger voters are both pro-government and pro-business, split over gun control, back abortion and believe welfare does more good than harm. What’s more, they are not angry voters and are still politically diverse.

“I think he confirmed what a lot of Republicans already know, that the party has a lot of work to do with younger Americans, who view the GOP as politically rigid and ideologically out of step. If there’s a bright spot, it’s that millennials are increasingly untethered to either party, which means there’s a chance for Republicans to win them back,” said Ripon’s Lou Zickar.

Pollster John Zogby, who has dubbed millennials First Globals in his new book, said those born after 1979 already number 75 million and will grow to become bigger than the 78-million strong Baby Boom generation, and that should be good for Democrats.

We asked him about Dimock’s prediction and characterization of the current and coming generation.

Said Zogby, who does our weekly report card on President Obama: “The 41 percent non-white figure is right on the money and so is the projection. There is a strong libertarian streak, but they largely do not hate government if it can prove to be a problem-solver. They have no patience for loud debates and for bureaucratic entropy, favoring quick and streamlined forms of problem-solving and decision-making — just as they have learned in video games. There is also an upside to their all having received a trophy: They are great believers and practitioners in teamwork. This is potentially great news for Democrats and liberals (34 percent call themselves such), but mainly it is worse news for the GOP, who have no meaningful outreach or connectivity with them.”

Source: The Washington Examiner

Janet Yellen closer to becoming Fed chair

Janet Yellen
Janet Yellen

Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen moved closer on Thursday to becoming the first woman to lead the U.S. central bank after a Senate committee approved her nomination and sent it to the full Senate for a final vote.

If confirmed, as is widely expected, Yellen would replace Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke when his term expires on January 31 and become the most powerful woman in world finance.

The vote was 14-8. Three Republicans backed her appointment and one Democrat voted no.

A Democratic leadership aide said the aim was to hold a confirmation vote in the full Senate in December.

Nominated by President Barack Obama, Yellen is viewed as a monetary policy dove more concerned about the costs to society of high unemployment than about the risk aggressive actions to lower it will ignite future inflation or fuel asset bubbles.

She will preside over a central bank that has taken dramatic and unconventional steps to spur economic growth, and which is now wrestling with a decision on when to scale back a bond-buying program that has sought to drive down long-term market interest rates.

The Fed has held benchmark U.S. interest rates near zero since late 2008 and has quadrupled the size of its balance sheet to $3.9 trillion through three massive asset purchase campaigns. It is currently buying $85 billion in bonds a month.

Both Yellen and Bernanke have emphasized in recent days that the Fed will keep interest rates low for some time even after it winds down its asset purchases, remarks that have bolstered expectations of policy continuity at the central bank.

Friends and foes

Minutes of the Fed’s October meeting released on Wednesday showed policymakers were debating how best to enhance their forward guidance on when to expect rates to rise to help temper any economically disruptive moves in financial markets once the central bank starts tapering its bond buying.

The Fed has said it would not raise rates before the U.S. jobless rate falls to 6.5 percent, as long as inflation looked set to stay below 2.5 percent. Unemployment stood at 7.3 percent in October.

When Bernanke first broached the possibility of a near-term reduction in the asset purchases in May and June, he sparked a bout of global financial market turmoil that sent bond yields soaring and hit emerging markets hard.

The Fed’s aggressive actions have drawn fire from Republican lawmakers worried about the risk of inflation and asset bubbles. Many also complain the central bank has abetted big spending by the Obama administration by snapping up the bulk of new Treasury debt issuance.

“The long-term costs of these policies are unclear and frankly worrisome,” Senator Michael Crapo, the top Republican on the banking panel, said before voting ‘no.’

Despite those concerns, Yellen is expected to handily win confirmation when the full Senate considers her nomination.

Democrats control 55 of the 100 votes in the Senate, which means she would need the backing of only a handful of Republicans to secure the 60 votes necessary to clear any procedural hurdles that might be thrown in her path.

She looks well on the way to reaching that threshold.

Yellen received support from three Republicans on the committee: Bob Corker of Tennessee, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

In addition, Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have also indicated they are inclined to back her.

The Democrat who voted against her in committee was Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

(Reporting by Alister Bull and Margaret Chadbourn; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Andrea Ricci) – Reuters

Obama ‘absolutely certain’ immigration bill would pass

Dreaming of a black America
Dreaming of a black America

President Barack Obama says he is “absolutely certain” that the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill would pass the House if majority Republicans brought it up for a vote. But Republicans say they’ll bring up a series of narrow bills instead.

Speaking Friday at the White House, Obama said he would like to see the House act on the Senate bill in September, as soon as they return from summer recess. He urged the House to put forward a bill that could pass, even if does not match the Senate bill. The versions could be reconciled later. Obama says no bill would solve the nation’s immigration problem 100 percent.

The Senate-passed bill would include billions for border security and a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. – Breitbart

Americans against Congress: Over 80% dissaprove

US Capitol
US Capitol

Record-breaking numbers of Americans have lost support for Congress, according to a survey. Eighty-three per cent of respondents said they disapprove of the job its doing, while 57 per cent said they would replace every member of Congress if they could.

The poll (link to poll), conducted jointly by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, has illustrated new heights of vehement public distaste for the actions of the US government.

“There is a palpable unhappiness with Washington,” Republican pollster Peter D. Hart said upon learning the poll’s results. His Democratic counterpart concurred that “now is the summer of our discontent.”

At the same time, President Barack Obama has seen his approval rating slump to 45 per cent – down from 48 per cent last month. This marks his lowest rating since August 2011, when nearly every US politician suffered a blow on account of the debt-ceiling crisis, when Obama became embroiled in a heated debate with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other Republicans in Congress.

The reasons cited for the lack of support for Congress included the government ignoring the middle-class, gridlock, the inability for lawmakers to produce any tangible results, and President Obama’s policies and leadership in general.

However, these reasons invariably fall into different camps, with Republicans and Democrats citing different primary reasons. Democrats and independents are irritated with congressional gridlock and governmental inactivity, while Republicans are anti-Obama.

The poll used a cross section of 1,000 adults – including 300 cell phone only respondents – and was conducted between July 17-21.

Similar polls surrounding Obama’s popularity, conducted in recent weeks, seem to corroborate the results. A Gallup report released Monday revealed that Obama averaged a 47.9 per cent approval rating over the course of the past three months. A McClatchy-Marist national survey placed Obama’s overall approval rating closer to 41 per cent.- RT

‘Libertarians are dangerous’

Chris Christie
Chris Christie

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”

Christie acknowledged that there will always be mistakes when it comes to national security and protecting privacy, but said Americans need to stay focused on what’s at stake.

He dismissed some of the current privacy/national security debates as “esoteric.”

“I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t,” he said. “And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001.”

Christie also praised the national security strategies of both President Obama and George W. Bush.

“I want to say that I think both the way President Bush conducted himself and the way President Obama has conducted himself in the main on those types of decisions hasn’t been different because they were right and because we haven’t had another one of those attacks that cost thousands and thousands of lives,” Christie said.

Christie appeared alongside Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R). The four GOP governors appeared side-by-side at a session hosted by the nonpartisan Aspen Institute.

The four of them are all considered among the GOP’s top potential presidential candidates in 2016, with each of them ranking on The Fix’s most recent list of the top 10 likeliest nominees.

The Republican Governors Association was holding its summer meeting in the mountainous resort town.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R), who was slated to appear, had to stay in his home state with the state legislature moving on legislation — including new abortion restrictions. – Washington Post